We are living in a NEW Covenant. Some of the laws are different—namely, the ritual laws.
Jesus abolished divorce, for instance, even though Moses allowed it.
Even granting that Jesus did not want us to LITERALLY drink his blood—because it would be a sin—you then need to explain why Jesus would command us to SIMULATE the commission of that sin, by repeatedly telling us to drink his blood SYMBOLICALLY by drinking wine that Jesus SAID was his blood.
Show me where Jesus said that we should SIMULATE committing adultery, or SIMULATE committing blasphemy. Yet, even if you reject the Catholic belief about the Eucharist, you have to admit that it is a SIMULATION of the “sin” of drinking blood.
Show me somewhere, anywhere, where Jesus told us to SIMULATE the commission of sins.
There are no laws for the New Testament church...
Even granting that Jesus did not want us to LITERALLY drink his blood—because it would be a sin—you then need to explain why Jesus would command us to SIMULATE the commission of that sin, by repeatedly telling us to drink his blood SYMBOLICALLY by drinking wine that Jesus SAID was his blood.
It IS explained in the bible...It is a metaphor to the believers...We are to do it as a memorial of the Crucifixion...
Jesus told us to break the bread...Why??? So we could constantly break his body into pieces??? Of course not...So that we could remember that his body was broken for us...
Did Jesus tell us to nail the wafer to a cross??? Nope...Did Jesus tells us to bury the wafer??? Nope...Has God told people to eat other things that were not edible??? Tons of times...Did those people eat those things??? Of course not...
But looking at the other side of the coin; what motivation could the Catholic religion have for making the claim to eat the flesh is literal instead of a metaphor???
Because it is the Catholic religion only that makes the claim that Catholic priests only can turn the cracker into the flesh of Jesus...And you can't get Jesus unless you are a Catholic attending a Catholic Church...The bible calls that bondage... It is not a simulation as such...When God told Jeremiah to eat his book, Jeremiah knew he was not simulating eating a book...
There are no ritual laws.
>>you then need to explain why Jesus would command us to SIMULATE the commission of that sin,<<
I need to explain no such thing. He didn't teach to "simulate" anything. He instituted a memorial meal. "In remembrance" of His broken body and shed blood. A meal to remind us of His once for all sacrifice.
>>Show me where Jesus said that we should SIMULATE committing adultery, or SIMULATE committing blasphemy.<<
What kind of nonsense is that? Is that some sort of diversionary mind game? You keep bringing up this "simulate" word. I don't know of anyone who thinks we "simulate" anything.
>>Show me somewhere, anywhere, where Jesus told us to SIMULATE the commission of sins.<<
Show me somewhere, anywhere that I have ever used the word "simulate". If you can't then let's dispense with the diversionary straw man shall we?
We have been through this before Arthur. The eating of blood was a sin. Even in the Old Testament sacrifices the priests were specifically told that the blood was not to be eaten but to be spilled on the ground. That is exactly what happened to the blood of Jesus. None of the others on those crosses were pierced.
Christ didn't say to keep offering perpetually. He said to "remember". The continual offering is a denial of the "once for all" sufficiency. God didn't ask for a "continual offering".
Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
"One sacrifice" for sins. Not a continual sacrifice or offering. The "daily sacrifice" of the Catholic mass is not from God. Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father. He is NOT being continually sacrificed. Jesus is not paying the price. He paid the price.